HC quashes amendments to Consumer Act

MUMBAI, February 2: The order was passed by the division bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashok Agarwal and Justice Ajit Shah on a petition ...

MUMBAI, February 2: The order was passed by the division bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashok Agarwal and Justice Ajit Shah on a petition filed by the Bombay Telephone Users Association BUTA through its joint honorary secretary Jehangir Gai.

Citing various provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the Maharashtra Consumer Protection Rules, the BUTA submitted that the Commission and Forum have two to three members each, including the presiding officer. While the president of the Commission is either a retired or sitting High Court judge, the Forum president is either a retired or sitting district judge. The other members of the Forum and Commission are non-legal professionals who have excelled in their respective fields.

The petition said that under provisions of the Act, when the post of the presiding officer is vacant, or the officer is unable to discharge his duties for a day or more, the seniormost member of the Commission or Forum shall hold the office of the presiding officer till a new officer is appointed or till the officer resumes charge.

But as per the amendment made by the Maharashtra government on July 27, 1998, for another member of the Commission or Forum to decide a case, it is necessary that he/she is a judge, serving or retired.

The BUTA in its petition also highlighted a 1996 Supreme Court ruling which upheld an order passed by two members of the West Bengal Commission without the consent of the Commission president.

Counsel for the petitioners Rui Rodrigues submitted that consumers cannot be left in the lurch in the absence of a presiding officer, as under the Consumer Protection Act, all three members constituting the bench are given equal status with regard to delivering judgements. Rodrigues further said a mere circular cannot amend the rules. In the absence of a presiding officer, he held, the seniormost person with a non-legal background should take charge. He pointed out that the circular was against the 1996 SC ruling.

Government pleader Rajshekhar Govilkar told the court it was necessary to issue the circular as non-judicial members of the commission would not be in a position to do justice due to lack of a judicial background. He added the circular was not against the apex court ruling.

Story continues below this ad

The HC observed the state government circular was against the apex court ruling, and the mere circular could not amend rules of the Act.